RAM PHAL Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner workman has challenged the order dated 25th November, 2006 holding that the enquiry officer had not transgressed the rules of natural justice and had given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and thus holding that the enquiry was conducted according to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has also challenged the award dated 9th October, 2007 holding that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the pleading and evidence produced along with the writ petition. It is apparent from the cross examination of the petitioner that it was admitted by him that he had received the charge sheet and the documents regarding leave which were furnished along with the chargesheet. He had also stated that the record of leave application and medical certificates were not called by him as he had admitted the charge. The Labour Court has also held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice merely because the enquiry officer had put certain questions to the petitioner who had admitted his guilt and in the circumstances it could not be held that the enquiry officer had acted as a prosecutor or a Judge.

(3.) Regarding the circulars of the DTC in respect of which it had been alleged that they were not provided to the petitioner, reliance was placed on State Bank of Patiala Vs.S.K.Sharma, 1997 LLR 268 holding that except cases falling under no notice, no opportunity and no hearing categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice viz. whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. It was held that if it is found that he has been really prejudiced, appropriate orders could be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the orders of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. From the enquiry report it is apparent that the workman was held guilty of charge on the basis that the petitioner had admitted that he had taken leave without pay and had not given any proof and reasoning for the substantial period of his leave. The Labour Court had held that after going through the report it is apparent that the findings of the enquiry officers are based on record and he had not considered any extraneous material and in the circumstances and consequently, it was held that there was no perversity.